Comments

Tim got it wrong, the future of TV isn’t Apps, it was always services. The app-per-channel model has provided a fragmented, inconsistent UX that’s not what I’ve come to expect from Apple.

Have you not used the TV app? It provides a unified front for browsing content from multiple channels/apps, and the UX for watching new and next episodes couldn’t be easier. That there are separate apps becomes secondary.

Can someone explain to me why Apple should get a cut of someone else’s subscription revenue? I’d ask the same question of Google or Microsoft or anyone else. Apple doesn’t host the content, they don’t do marketing or promotion. And if these companies could offer their own payment system in-app they would. If the argument is they wouldn’t exist were it not for Apple’s platform then why isn’t Apple taking a cut of every Uber and Lyft transaction?

It's just like Amazon... they get a cut of every sale made through their website/app even if it comes from a 3rd party marketplace... Amazon doesn't pay for the shipping, handling, packaging, etc. and they don't provide warehouses to store those retail goods. They just provide access to their retail platform and charge for it.

Good analogy. I used to sell products and Amazon was one of my channels. We paid a cut to them despite “hosting” our inventory in our own facility with our own staff that handled packing & shipping, which we paid the postage for. We were paying that cut for the access to their wide customer base on their platform. Just like Apple with its platform customer base.

In my experience it’s usually people with no exposure to business who have the most complaints about normal facets of business. God help them if they ever see what retail distributors get for their minimal involvement.

Apples own shows are rumoured to be free to anyone with the TV app? Which is everyone who has an iPhone, iPad or Apple TV then? I’d be surprised if that was true

I don’t have the TV app.

I remember Apple pushing the TV app to all iOS devices so you must not have any ....

The trouble is you don’t live in all countries, only the US. Most countries with iOS devices do not currently have the TV app.

I don’t believe this is true. You don’t have to live in the US to have TV app. I have TV app on my iPhone even though I’m not in the US physically (& my region settings is also not the US). I’m using US App Store though. (On the other hand, there is no News app on my phone)

If you do not live in the US, the only possible way you could be using the US App Store is if you have a US based credit/bank card registered with your iTunes/App Store account.

Can someone explain to me why Apple should get a cut of someone else’s subscription revenue? I’d ask the same question of Google or Microsoft or anyone else. Apple doesn’t host the content, they don’t do marketing or promotion. And if these companies could offer their own payment system in-app they would. If the argument is they wouldn’t exist were it not for Apple’s platform then why isn’t Apple taking a cut of every Uber and Lyft transaction?

Apple can take a cut if people and companies are willing to pay them. I’m not being anything but obvious. It’s a contract, a decision, that both parties agree is beneficial to both of them.

Is Apple’s service worth it to me? They are offering me a service I otherwise would have to do myself, with all the expenses associated. Sure, they get a cut of my subscription revenues, but I don’t have to handle the millions of individual subscriptions from millions of individual customers — Apple is doing that for me. And Apple gives me access to Apple customers. That’s really important to me. Apple customers are have money. They are not as price conscious as android users. Apple users are willing to upgrade their iPhones every year, and pay top price for them. I like Apple’s customers.

Can someone explain to me why Apple should get a cut of someone else’s subscription revenue? I’d ask the same question of Google or Microsoft or anyone else. Apple doesn’t host the content, they don’t do marketing or promotion. And if these companies could offer their own payment system in-app they would. If the argument is they wouldn’t exist were it not for Apple’s platform then why isn’t Apple taking a cut of every Uber and Lyft transaction?

For the same reasons all resellers take a cut of the price - operating expenses and profit. Any company is free to avoid the charge by creating their own app and selling the subscription on their own website. Using your logic, why do cable companies and satellite tv companies charge? Why do local tv stations insert their own ads in shows? Why does a company pay workers? Those darn greedy workers.

Rogifan has been b*tching about Apple's cut from the App Store for years. Despite numerous responses such as yours, and dozens more, the person keeps bringing up the same question over, and over (and over) again. It is not worth your time to respond...the information is not sinking in...

Can someone explain to me why Apple should get a cut of someone else’s subscription revenue? I’d ask the same question of Google or Microsoft or anyone else. Apple doesn’t host the content, they don’t do marketing or promotion. And if these companies could offer their own payment system in-app they would. If the argument is they wouldn’t exist were it not for Apple’s platform then why isn’t Apple taking a cut of every Uber and Lyft transaction?

Operating expenses.

What operating expenses? And if that’s the argument why are there any free apps in the App Store?

Can someone explain to me why Apple should get a cut of someone else’s subscription revenue? I’d ask the same question of Google or Microsoft or anyone else. Apple doesn’t host the content, they don’t do marketing or promotion. And if these companies could offer their own payment system in-app they would. If the argument is they wouldn’t exist were it not for Apple’s platform then why isn’t Apple taking a cut of every Uber and Lyft transaction?

Digital content is the key here. A business Apple itself is in. Apple could either, ban ALL digital content distribution services from their platforms, or they could allow 3rd party content providers to make their services/stores available, but charge a fee when a user signs up or makes a purchase via Apple's platform.

It's just like Amazon... they get a cut of every sale made through their website/app even if it comes from a 3rd party marketplace... Amazon doesn't pay for the shipping, handling, packaging, etc. and they don't provide warehouses to store those retail goods. They just provide access to their retail platform and charge for it.

Furthermore, any digital content distributor can avoid giving Apple their cut, but if they do so, they are not allowed to "point" to where the user can go to subscribe or make purchases. For instance, Amazon's Kindle app is just a "reader" for the content you already have access to... it provides no means to subscribe or make purchases and there's no "link" in the app that takes you directly to a web page that allows you to.

Ok, one more thing...

If anyone thinks it is unfair for Apple to get a cut, then that person can simply go to the website and subscribe or make purchases and then download and use the iOS app "free of charge".

I did sign up for Netflix via Safari. The same with Spotify when I was a customer. Also it’s one thing to take a cut when someone signs up for a service but to get a cut of the recurring monthly fee for pretty much doing nothing? I think that’s a messed up business model.

John Gruber had Ben Thompson on his latest podcast and they discussed Apple’s services revenues. The biggest drivers of increases in services revenue is the App Store and iCloud storage. So basically Apple’s services story (that the company is talking up) is more people wasting money on IAP in games (or paying to get rid of annoying ads) and being stingy with iCloud storage. I’m not sure that’s something I’d be proud of.

Can someone explain to me why Apple should get a cut of someone else’s subscription revenue? I’d ask the same question of Google or Microsoft or anyone else. Apple doesn’t host the content, they don’t do marketing or promotion. And if these companies could offer their own payment system in-app they would. If the argument is they wouldn’t exist were it not for Apple’s platform then why isn’t Apple taking a cut of every Uber and Lyft transaction?

Apple can take a cut if people and companies are willing to pay them. I’m not being anything but obvious. It’s a contract, a decision, that both parties agree is beneficial to both of them.

Is Apple’s service worth it to me? They are offering me a service I otherwise would have to do myself, with all the expenses associated. Sure, they get a cut of my subscription revenues, but I don’t have to handle the millions of individual subscriptions from millions of individual customers — Apple is doing that for me. And Apple gives me access to Apple customers. That’s really important to me. Apple customers are have money. They are not as price conscious as android users. Apple users are willing to upgrade their iPhones every year, and pay top price for them. I like Apple’s customers.

Sure it might be worth it for smaller developers but I’m not talking about that. I’m taking about content providers which are mostly large corporations who don’t need Apple to handle anything for them.

Apples own shows are rumoured to be free to anyone with the TV app? Which is everyone who has an iPhone, iPad or Apple TV then? I’d be surprised if that was true

I don’t have the TV app.

I remember Apple pushing the TV app to all iOS devices so you must not have any ....

The trouble is you don’t live in all countries, only the US. Most countries with iOS devices do not currently have the TV app.

I don’t believe this is true. You don’t have to live in the US to have TV app. I have TV app on my iPhone even though I’m not in the US physically (& my region settings is also not the US). I’m using US App Store though. (On the other hand, there is no News app on my phone)

If you do not live in the US, the only possible way you could be using the US App Store is if you have a US based credit/bank card registered with your iTunes/App Store account.

Incorrect. US iTunes gift card is enough, and it can be easily obtained from anywhere.

This isn't really much different than the way it is now... even though you don't subscribe directly through the TV app they still link you whatever app you need to watch, and from there just another click or two will allow you to subscribe through iTunes.

Can someone explain to me why Apple should get a cut of someone else’s subscription revenue? I’d ask the same question of Google or Microsoft or anyone else. Apple doesn’t host the content, they don’t do marketing or promotion. And if these companies could offer their own payment system in-app they would. If the argument is they wouldn’t exist were it not for Apple’s platform then why isn’t Apple taking a cut of every Uber and Lyft transaction?

For the same reasons all resellers take a cut of the price - operating expenses and profit. Any company is free to avoid the charge by creating their own app and selling the subscription on their own website. Using your logic, why do cable companies and satellite tv companies charge? Why do local tv stations insert their own ads in shows? Why does a company pay workers? Those darn greedy workers.

Very true but there's another reason too... when an app allows subscribing through IAP's, they are acting as the payment processor. They are doing the billing the same way a credit card processing company is processing your charges when you get a credit card machine in your store or business. There's costs involved with that too, that don't only happen when you first charge, it's ongoing... for a monthly subscription through iTunes, Apple is processing the credit card payment every time.

Can someone explain to me why Apple should get a cut of someone else’s subscription revenue? I’d ask the same question of Google or Microsoft or anyone else. Apple doesn’t host the content, they don’t do marketing or promotion. And if these companies could offer their own payment system in-app they would. If the argument is they wouldn’t exist were it not for Apple’s platform then why isn’t Apple taking a cut of every Uber and Lyft transaction?

For the same reasons all resellers take a cut of the price - operating expenses and profit. Any company is free to avoid the charge by creating their own app and selling the subscription on their own website. Using your logic, why do cable companies and satellite tv companies charge? Why do local tv stations insert their own ads in shows? Why does a company pay workers? Those darn greedy workers.

Very true but there's another reason too... when an app allows subscribing through IAP's, they are acting as the payment processor. They are doing the billing the same way a credit card processing company is processing your charges when you get a credit card machine in your store or business. There's costs involved with that too, that don't only happen when you first charge, it's ongoing... for a monthly subscription through iTunes, Apple is processing the credit card payment every time.

Only because Apple don’t allow anyone else to process the payment via IAP. If Spotify could use its own payment system in app it would.

I don't understand how the new development described in the article benefits me as a user. Signing up for third-party services isn't something I do frequently. In fact, so far I've done so exactly two times: Netflix years ago and Prime last year. Having to visit a web page twice in several years doesn't seem like much of a hardship. What pain point is making subscriptions available through the TV app supposed to remedy?

I'm not dismissing it, if there's a benefit I'm all for it, I just don't get it.

Can someone explain to me why Apple should get a cut of someone else’s subscription revenue? I’d ask the same question of Google or Microsoft or anyone else. Apple doesn’t host the content, they don’t do marketing or promotion. And if these companies could offer their own payment system in-app they would. If the argument is they wouldn’t exist were it not for Apple’s platform then why isn’t Apple taking a cut of every Uber and Lyft transaction?

It's just like Amazon... they get a cut of every sale made through their website/app even if it comes from a 3rd party marketplace... Amazon doesn't pay for the shipping, handling, packaging, etc. and they don't provide warehouses to store those retail goods. They just provide access to their retail platform and charge for it.

Good analogy. I used to sell products and Amazon was one of my channels. We paid a cut to them despite “hosting” our inventory in our own facility with our own staff that handled packing & shipping, which we paid the postage for. We were paying that cut for the access to their wide customer base on their platform. Just like Apple with its platform customer base.

In my experience it’s usually people with no exposure to business who have the most complaints about normal facets of business. God help them if they ever see what retail distributors get for their minimal involvement.

Tim got it wrong, the future of TV isn’t Apps, it was always services. The app-per-channel model has provided a fragmented, inconsistent UX that’s not what I’ve come to expect from Apple.

Have you not used the TV app? It provides a unified front for browsing content from multiple channels/apps, and the UX for watching new and next episodes couldn’t be easier. That there are separate apps becomes secondary.

Yeah, and it was pretty clear they intended the TV app to be the "front" of the ATV, but it wasn't ready when they put out the hardware.

I don't understand how the new development described in the article benefits me as a user. Signing up for third-party services isn't something I do frequently. In fact, so far I've done so exactly two times: Netflix years ago and Prime last year. Having to visit a web page twice in several years doesn't seem like much of a hardship. What pain point is making subscriptions available through the TV app supposed to remedy?

I'm not dismissing it, if there's a benefit I'm all for it, I just don't get it.

Did you read the article? It simplifies the entire process. Currently the TV app kicks you out to third party apps, which you have had to have first downloaded and signed into separately, and in some cases paid for elsewhere. This removes all of those steps. Eventually, it's suggested, the content streaming would be handled by the TV app itself. Just because you don't use 3rd party TV apps/subscriptions, doesn't mean a ton of people won't find this much easier than the current process. Prime Video already does all this with their 3rd party channel subscriptions, and it couldn't be easier — I subscribed to Showtime through Amazon for the run of Twin Peaks last year, and canceled it after. Amazon has my billing info, I already had the Prime Video app on all my devices, the content is streamed within and not kicked out to a 3rd party Showtime app (though you can still use that IF you want), progress is tracked across all, it couldn't have been easier. This is what Apple is doing, they're just taking their sweet time as usual.

Can someone explain to me why Apple should get a cut of someone else’s subscription revenue? I’d ask the same question of Google or Microsoft or anyone else. Apple doesn’t host the content, they don’t do marketing or promotion. And if these companies could offer their own payment system in-app they would. If the argument is they wouldn’t exist were it not for Apple’s platform then why isn’t Apple taking a cut of every Uber and Lyft transaction?

It's just like Amazon... they get a cut of every sale made through their website/app even if it comes from a 3rd party marketplace... Amazon doesn't pay for the shipping, handling, packaging, etc. and they don't provide warehouses to store those retail goods. They just provide access to their retail platform and charge for it.

Good analogy. I used to sell products and Amazon was one of my channels. We paid a cut to them despite “hosting” our inventory in our own facility with our own staff that handled packing & shipping, which we paid the postage for. We were paying that cut for the access to their wide customer base on their platform. Just like Apple with its platform customer base.

In my experience it’s usually people with no exposure to business who have the most complaints about normal facets of business. God help them if they ever see what retail distributors get for their minimal involvement.

Ok how come there are free apps in the App Store then?

Because they have very well paid people like your buddy Eddy Cue to study, analyze, plan, and execute complex business strategies and in that process they figured it was better to allow free apps than to force developers to charge a minimum fee just so they could take a cut? ¯\(°_o)/¯ Are you really this willfully obtuse or an expert troll, sometimes it's hard to tell.

Just because you don't use 3rd party TV apps/subscriptions, doesn't mean a ton of people won't find this much easier than the current process.

Fair enough, if that's the case. It initially struck me as something people would not do often enough for it matter. If the expectation is that users will add subscriptions fairly regularly then it makes sense.

Tim got it wrong, the future of TV isn’t Apps, it was always services. The app-per-channel model has provided a fragmented, inconsistent UX that’s not what I’ve come to expect from Apple.

Have you not used the TV app? It provides a unified front for browsing content from multiple channels/apps, and the UX for watching new and next episodes couldn’t be easier. That there are separate apps becomes secondary.

I have but it’s not available globally like Siri (I’m in NZ)

It does unify but it still hands off to the App which could be cleaner. We have some smaller content providers here (& I suspect the world over) who could do with not writing their own apps (even if they haven’t worked that out yet).